59 comments:

I remember being alot like these pinheads in the 1980s when I was in college. I thought Reagan was evil, blah blah blah. But I was never as idiotic as "these darn kids today." I predict these schmucks will experience the same "oh sh** I was an idiot in college" moment of clarity that I did once I reached 26 or so. They had better, or they'll be unemployed and living with their parents on their 30th birthday.

These "student protests" are designed to intimidate speakers and if that fails, to simply prevent the speaker from expressing himself by drowning him out with cliched slogans. In that sense they are absolutely Fascist.

These students are suppose to be adults. It's time to treat them as adults. If you throw objects (including pies) at someone because you don't like their opinion you should be charged with a crime. If you "protest" someone by surrounding them in a gang, hassle and jostle them and yell hostile chants at them you need to be disciplined.

Trust me - if 18-22 year olds adults in the inner city behaved like this the police would apprehend them without hesitation. It's time we stop coddling these campus brats.

From Jonathan Rosenblum (a law school classmate of Judge Alito) in the Jerusalem Post:

"Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own. ...

"Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises. ...

"LIBERALS CAN be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views - especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged."

Ann Colter's shtick is controversy. I loved her line about Barbara Boxer.

However, there is no excuse to hassle speakers. Show your dissent by walking out. They should be disciplined. If you hit someone with a pie, it's a clear case of assault, justice should be quick and certain.

What it ultimately comes down to is, the protesters don't trust the people listening to the speech and evaluate it on the merits themselves. Just like the people who want to keep military recruiters off-campus: they regard their conclusions as inescapably correct, but don't trust other people to reach the same conclusions they do, so instead of questioning whether their assumptions are right, they seek to deny folks the opportunity to disagree with them.

It isn't just on campus. I've been routinely shouted down in other fora, specifically internet discussion groups devoted to certain rock 'n' roll artists, for challenging and debating the liberal POV. My favorite slur was when I was called "unevolved." Yep, that's me: just your average right-wing troglodyte.

I've found Liberals, as a group, tend to be the most intolerant people on the planet. (Althouse commenters generally excepted) YMMV, of course.

I do enjoy listening to Ann, esp. as a talking head on TV. But what has to be remembered is that this is really a big, lucrative, game to her. She makes a comfortable living doing this, knowing that she is going to be booed, etc. That is one reason that she always travels with security anymore.

But just imagine if people didn't boo her, etc. Would she make as much money speaking? In her books? She is extremely articulate, but puts her self way out there for the liberals to take shots at because it pays. It pays very well, and she doesn't have to practice law anymore.

They're Progressives. That means they're moving forward or upward. If you're not a Progressive then you're in the way. In other words, there is no room for the "other" in Progressive thinking, hence the vitriole, bile, knee-jerk reactionary behavior.

Telling a liberal there is no global warming is like telling a Baptist there is no Jesus (religious comparison intentional). EVERYBODY worships at some altar -- even atheists. Liberals (broad I realize) are fundamentalists, but they are enlightened -- unlike all those other hitleresque right wing fundamentalists. That type of thinking killed over 100 million people in the 20th c. -- often for no other reason than thinking differently than the enlightened way.

Now this is not to say that Liberals are boorish all the time, they most often are not that way. In other areas (like religious adherents) they are wonderful and friendly folks. Just don't talk about religious doctrine -- environment, war, Bush, global trade, Florida, race relations. Those issues are a closed canon to which no new revelation will be forthcoming. Like religious adherents they have some differeing levels of passion about certain subjects. Some Christians won't faint if you deny the Virgin birth others will foam and spit. Ditto some Libs and illegal immigration.

And they say they don't like religion in the public square. Sure they do -- just not yours (if "yours" is not "theirs".

Not all libs are that way of course (Lieberman, and the fair [in both contexts] Prof. Althouse and many others and many others Ford from TN doesn't seem that way, and many others.

I do find it interesting that what she is accused of is what is being practiced against her. The real "hate speech" was the booing, etc. at the speech. That was the intolerance.

I don't think what she does most of time is really "hate speech". Her targets are almost always liberals, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc. What she does do is humor - she is supremely cynical about the Democratic party, its leaders, and liberals in general.

But what I do find interesting is that "hate speech" has been extended to protecting liberals in general. I understand why certain minorities demanded protection from hate speech because of their powerlessness, but liberals? The Democratic Party?

There is a savage, primal glee in booing, hissing and cat-calling at a Public speaker one strongly disagrees with. I highly recommend it. It is Democracy in your face. It clears the head and purges the blood of bile. She was not threatened nor attempts made to physically prevent her from speaking. She should have elevated her voice and kept flipping the bird at the hecklers. When the passive, receptive audience begins to leave due to hecklers, then the intent of the speech is foiled and the hecklers have won. Only in America, baby, only in America.

During the question-and-answer session, someone asked Coulter if she really was against a woman's right to vote.

"Not having women vote is a joke," she said, reversing comments she has previously made.

This is outrageous. She wasn't reversing a previous comment. She was explaining that a previous comment was meant as a joke, which should have been obvious anyway. The author of that article should be ashamed.

And the cash train keeps rolling. Coulter has perfected and even improved upon the G. Gordon Liddy approach to riling up college kids, attracting protesters at his speeches, encouraging a fracas to ensue and bankrolling it all into even more media attention and lecture gigs as a result. I can't blame her - its a great and obviously very lucrative marketing plan. Now she can publish the book "The lecture about evil liberals that evil liberals don't want you to hear." $29.95 and headed straight to the top of the NYT Best Sellers list.

I don't defend the immature students at UConn, but isn't this what Coulter is looking for when she writes a book titled How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)? Let's not pretend that suppressing intelligent debate is the lone realm of college liberals.

I agree with Bruce and Coco. Coulter provokes controversies because it gets her name in the newspaper and helps her sell more books. The Republican student quoted in the article regrets that his fellow students didn't have an opportunity to hear a different point of view, but even if the protestors had stayed home, all the students would have heard would have been a series of one-liners about how Democrats are stupid and ignorant and have a lot of sex.

Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are pretty similar in some ways. When they are guests on, for example, the Bill Maher show, or Letterman or something, they seem interesting and reasonable and make some good points. They're funny and charming. On their own shows and in their own books, they are much more arrogant and provocative for the sake of being provocative, and don't give us much analysis.

If these students had booed somebody like George F. Will or Charles Krauthammer off-stage, that would be something different. Bylin's examples re: Bill Kristol and Richard Perle are much more troubling to me than what happened to Ann Coulter at UConn.

If they wanted to wreck her speech, they should have remained absolutely silent and let her words just hang there. Like when Marcia and Greg were both practicing their speeches for Student Body President and...oh never mind.

Young people are often kinda stupidly passionate when they should be strategic.

When you insult your audience, isn't it obvious that you're going to get crap from them? We're you all expecting a different sort of reaction from a crowd consisting of public college students from a blue state university?

I agree that she's pretty disrespectful herself and that it's a calculated show meant to stir up kids like the one I quoted. In that sense, he's not so much repressive as her dupe. She got some good publicity today. I'm sure she's damned pleased about it.

Comparing Murtha to a NaziCoulter questioned Murtha's medals, writing that he "refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts."...Speaking of which, George Lincoln Rockwell, former head of the American Nazi Party, served in the military during World War II. Are we obligated to praise his war service before disputing his views?

Calling Democrats Traitors

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

Nuking N. KoreaThough that's the beauty part of Iraq: It may well not be necessary. Because precisely what I'm saying with nuking North Korea -- despite that wonderful peace deal Madeline Albright negotiated with the North Koreans, six seconds before they feverishly began developing nuclear weapons. They're a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."

Calling the victims of 9/11 cowardsCOLMES: Is that what that is? You certainly don't feel that New Yorkers are cowards?COULTER: I think they would immediately surrender.

Calling for discrimination against ArabsImagine the great slogans the airlines could use:# Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!"# "More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"# "The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab"# "You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!"

Calling the dislike of Bush traitorousCOLMES: Are all the American people that don't support him [President George W. Bush] dumb?COULTER: No. I think, as I indicated in my last book, they're traitors.

Defaming the 9/11 WidowsGIBSON: And you also refer to some of those who lost their husbands in 9-11 as McWidows.COULTER: Right. [ABC, Good Morning America, 10/5/04]

Forcefully converting Muslims to ChristianityALAN COLMES (co-host of Hannity & Colmes): [R]ight after September 11, you said, and you know where I'm going with this, I'm often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972: "Now more than ever."COULTER: Now more than ever.COLMES: Would you like to convert these people all to Christianity?COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations? Because that's what your ...COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.

I have a pretty decent understanding of the right. That's why, I humbly submit, when I wrote my book about Barry Goldwater, it got glowing reviews in every right-wing publication, from the Weekly Standard to a white-supremecist quarterly.

This is the point I want to convey. People who spew hate rhetoric, talk violence, and make things up have nothing to do with Michael Moore, Eric Alterman, and David Brock.

What they have to do with is this. The last time figures like Coulter were being mainstreamed for public consumption in this way was 1994-95. People like Gordon Liddy--who, recall, was "joking" to his listeners to shoot federal agents in the head.

This pushed the limits of the acceptable far to the right, and vulnerable, nutty people felt licensed to blow up buildings because of it.

I don't defend the immature students at UConn, but isn't this what Coulter is looking for when she writes a book titled How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)? Let's not pretend that suppressing intelligent debate is the lone realm of college liberals."

No, but they ARE the ones who spout all this "tolerance" blather and then fail to live up to their own standard.

Frankly, I'm more tolerant than these hypocrites, and I don't even believe in their version of tolerance.

I don't care for Ann Coulter. I think she reflects badly on conservatives and gives liberals plenty of ammo to support their perceptions of what they think conservatives are like.

When someone is invited to your school to speak though, they deserve to be able to speak their piece, be it Ann Coulter, Wade Churchill, whoever. Treating an invited speaker in this way reflects badly on the students. Disagreement with political opinions does not justify rudeness.

I gotta defend Coulter. She is brilliant and outrageous- and one of my favorite talking heads.

Re making money, so what that's the American Way. And let's not forget far-left Bill Moyers and his family feeding hungrily at the NPR (public money) trough for years. At least Coulter gets the public to reach into their own pockets voluntarily.

Also, I suspect Althouse is a lot more expressive and opinionated (ala Coulter) once she has a few drinks in her.

Lastly, these college kids would love Coulter if she was just a drinking buddy offering her opinions in the college pub.

"What they have to do with is this. The last time figures like Coulter were being mainstreamed for public consumption in this way was 1994-95. People like Gordon Liddy--who, recall, was "joking" to his listeners to shoot federal agents in the head."

"This pushed the limits of the acceptable far to the right, and vulnerable, nutty people felt licensed to blow up buildings because of it."

This is the exact opposite of conservatives complaining about the images served up by violent Hollywood movies and video games encouraging people to commit violence.

The pullquote you used is from a student who did not attend the event, who may have been stating his reasons for not attending, rather than supporting people who shouted her down. One must be careful to parse news articles to see who is really saying what about what.

Once again, the Althouse readers have to bunch the "liberals" into a ridiculous stereotype, preserving the "high moral standards of conservatives" (like Tom Delay and Sen.Frist for example). Clearly none of you attended conservative colleges (U.S.C., 1984, for example) when former V.P. Walter Mondale was running for office and having to deal with ignorant "Young Republicans" who ganged up at his speeches, heckling to the point where Mondale couldn't be heard, where his visits had to be shortened, where his messages of peace, a nuclear freeze and the ERA were disgustingly silenced.

If college students have to heckle, I'd rather them heckle hate talk as opposed to talk of peace.

ah, i come to althouse to find her posters defending ann "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity" coulter as some paragon of "diverse" views worthy of airing.

most excellent, particularly considering that miss coulter told the students they were "stupid." how dare they boo this model of well reasoned and valuable oratory!

and, not to suggest the mostly inane miss coulter is on par, would you condemn the students for protesting the appearance of slobodan milosevic? i'm sure he has "diverse" views regarding his opposition and muslims, views, actually, remarkably similar to those miss coulter has said aloud, repeatedly, as noted by quxxo above.

perhaps more amusing are the attempts to equate juvenile pranks with unconstitutional suppresion of free speech and fascism.

note to the wise: we're talking about pie throwing by college students at people who were paid tens of thousands of dollars for their time.

i could imagine worse punishments. particularly for miss coulter, though i've always suspected her act was just that, an act. An act calculated to get reasonable people upset and wingnuts all hot and bothered.

Tom Gaffey, editor-in-chief of the Daily Campus student newspaper, said he is concerned that Coulter's talk will be inflammatory.

"It's not that she's a Republican. It's her reputation as a hate promoter," Gaffey said. "If Michael Moore or a crazy, radical liberal who would bring just as poor of a reputation to campus came here, we would be against that too. Can't we bring a more intelligent speaker to campus? Can't we spend our money more wisely?"

Gaffey said the Daily Campus was also concerned that the student who helped bring her to campus had a conflict of interest because she was both a member of the College Republicans and a high-ranking member of the student government.

This is much more an issue of paid speech than it is an issue of free speech. Wouldn't you agree Ann?

(And as Brylin tries to change teh subject, I take it he agrees with me.)

One must presume that to be rhetorical. A liberal who claims to be in favor of diverse viewpoints is like the club owner in the Blues Brothers who declares, entirely seriously, that they have both kinds of music, country and western.

I am a 19 year old college student at the University of Connecticut. I am a music education major, one of the only few conservatives, especially within my major in itself. People go on about freedom of speech and how great that is about America. However this lack of respect for one another is just human decency, and respect. Respect one another's opinion, this is the fundamental issue at stake. You let others speak and then you articulately question what they say or consider their ideas. But many liberals are so wrapped up in their own beliefs that they never thought to consider others. I feel as though being on Liberal campus such as this, I cannot express my right to freedom of speech without people calling me an idiot or a wack job. I thought America was built on free thinking and diverse ideals, you know the thing that makes America so great? Freedom of speech, not for everyone. Maybe people should just keep their mouths shut and listen, and actually respect others.

Exalted: we'll have to disagree on this, to me rudeness and intolerance is not acceptable whether it's coming from Ann Coulter or college students.

Corey: I mostly agree with you, except for the implication this type of behavior is unique to liberals - it's not. There are plenty of conservatives out there who would cheer if it was Michael Moore being heckled. The key is mutual respect as you say.

I think the interesting--and fun-- thing about Ann Coulter is that a lot of what she says she means as a joke (like the whole women not voting thing) and it reveals how boring and humorless leftists are that they don't even have the perspective to get it.

Somewhere on one of these threads Troy likened liberals to Christian fundies. That's a very apt comparison IMO. If you don't subscribe to their doctrine, you're going to straight to hell.

Notice how some commenters on this thread were very quick to come up with all these arbitrary reasons why it's *really* no big deal that she got shouted down.... when free speech is supposedly the left's holy grail. pun intended.

Corey is right - this is not a free speech issue. Individuals can shout each other down without implicating, let alone violating, the First Amendment.

The boorishness of American politics is definitely on both sides. Witness Ann Coulter's sense of "humor" (!?!) as well as the the gratingly one-sided invocation of diversity by the left. Troy has a particularly good point IMO about the liberal "canon" of issues that are largely off the table where open-minded discussion is concerned.

As bad manners crosses the line into harrassment and/or physical aggression (e.g. pie-throwing), the law rightly comes into play. You could mount a somewhat credible defense of consent on Coulter's part, but it would probably, again rightly, fail.

The commenters who paint these activities and somewhat P.C. viewpoints as fascism& nazism in the making are over the top though. Puhlease. They imply that conservative public figures observe etiquette and respect opposing viewpoints. They should take a moment to catch up on the sayings and doings of Cheney, Coulter, Rush, DeLay, O'Reilly, Malkin, etc.

corey -- this is not a free speech issue. coulter got paid to come talk, and nobody stopped her. free speech issues are where the government censors someone, not when private individuals heckle.

goatwhacker -- coulter's raison d' etre is to lower and debase discourse. how anyone can really take issue with some college students playing her game is beyond me. if i were a college student, unless if the whole thing was presented as a satire ("look at the crazy"), i'd be pretty embarrased for my university to be associated with one of coulter's ilk.

Quxxo: Of course, that's terrible. Nothing like blogging going mainstream. No wonder the ads are pouring into Pajamas. This is why independent blogging is better. It's embarrassing to be in a joint enterprise with people who do things like that. And the "it's a joke" excuse is thoroughly lame (as I've said any number of times around here).